Decided on-: 17-12-2002
BENCH-: CJI, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S. N. VARIAVA, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI
FACTS
This case delves into the fundamental question of whether lawyers can go on strike, weighing this against the essential right to a speedy trial.
What makes this case notable is its in-depth analysis of the duties of lawyers as officers of the court and how their actions can influence the administration of justice.
ISSUES
Examining if lawyers possess a constitutional right to strike as per Article 19(c) of the Indian Constitution.
Assessing the legality of lawyer strikes, considering their consequences on the administration of justice and the rights of clients.
Evaluating the rationale behind prohibiting lawyer strikes and finding a balance between lawyer interests and the effective functioning of the legal system.
Defining the criteria for "rare of rarest cases" where lawyer strikes might be permissible.
Ensuring the preservation of the right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
JUDGMENT
Denial of Strike Right for Lawyers: The Court unequivocally affirmed that lawyers lack the entitlement to strike or boycott courts. This stance stemmed from recognizing lawyers as integral players in the administration of justice.
Lawyers' Role and Impact on Judicial System: The ruling underscored the distinctive role lawyers play in the legal framework, highlighting that strikes disrupt court proceedings, violating the right to a speedy trial and adversely affecting the justice delivery system.
Alternative Forms of Protest: The Court recommended alternative methods of protest for lawyers that don't hinder court proceedings, such as issuing press releases and engaging in peaceful demonstrations.
Legal Principles and Constitutional Tenets: The verdict was grounded in interpreting lawyers' roles as court officers, the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and the reasonable restriction of rights outlined in Article 19.
Commentaires